Judicial Understanding of the Reliability of Eyewitness Evidence: A Tale of Two Cases


  • Lirieka Meintjes-van der Walt




Eyewitness evidence, wrongful conviction, reliability of evidence, psychological eyewitness research findings, estimator variables


One of the most significant consequences of the use of post-conviction DNA testing in the criminal justice system has been the growing recognition that eyewitness identification testimony is simply not as reliable as it was previously considered to be. In approximately 75% of DNA exonerations in the United States, mistaken eyewitness identifications were the principal cause of wrongful convictions. Notwithstanding scientific advances regarding human memory and other factors that could influence identifications by eyewitnesses, courts have not shown eagerness in utilising such scientific knowledge in reaching legal decisions. Two cases have been chosen for discussion in this article. In S v Henderson 27 A 3d 872 (NJ 2011) the New Jersey Supreme Court was the first in State and Federal jurisdictions in the US that adopted a science-based approach to the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. The other case under discussion is S v Mdlongwa 2010 2 SACR 419 (SCA),a South African Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, where the identification of the perpetrator was based on an eyewitness account and the evidence of an expert on CCTV images. In part one of this article the research findings with regard to estimator variables that were acknowledged in S v Henderson are discussed. Part two specifically scrutinizes S v Mdlongwa to determine the extent to which psychological eyewitness research findings are recognised in South Africa as having an influence on the reliability of eyewitness evidence. In Henderson the court recognised that the legal standards governing the admissibility and use of identification evidence lagged far behind the findings of numerous studies in the social sciences. The new wave introduced by S v Henderson has not gone unnoticed in other State courts in the USA. In Massachusetts, for example, the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court convened a study group on Eyewitness Evidence and the resulting report inter alia recommended judicial notice of modern psychological principles, revised jury eyewitness identification instructions and continuous education of both judges and lawyers. Recognition and education pertaining to these factors can and should be incorporated in South Africa.


Google_Scholar_12025.png    ScienceOpen_Log034317.png


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...



Couch 2013 Mich L Rev

Couch R "A Model for Fixing Identification Evidence after Perry v New Hampshire" 2013 Mich L Rev 1535-1548

Cutler et al 1987 J Appl Psychol

Cutler BL et al "Improving the Reliability of Eyewitness Identification: Putting Context into Context" 1987 J Appl Psychol 629-637

Deffenbacher et al 2004 Law & Hum Behav

Deffenbacher KD et al "A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of High Stress on Eyewitness Memory" 2004 Law & Hum Behav 687-708

Dysart et al 2002 J Appl Psychol

Dysart JE et al "The Intoxicated Witness: Effects of Alcohol Identification Accuracy from Showups" 2002 J Appl Psychol 170-175

Edmond and Meintjes-Van der Walt 2014 SALJ

Edmond G and Meintjes-Van der Walt L "Blind Justice: Forensic Science and the Use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Images in South Africa" 2014 SALJ 109-148

Epstein 2007 Stetson L Rev

Epstein J "The Great Engine that Couldn't: Science, Mistaken Identity, and the Limits of Cross-Examination" 2007 Stetson L Rev 727-785

Findley "Wrongful Conviction"

Findley KA "Wrongful Conviction" in Cutler BL (ed) Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law (SAGE Thousand Oaks 2007) 869-873

Harris Failed Evidence

Harris D Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science (New York University Publishers New York 2012)

Leippe 1995 Psychol Pub Pol'y & L

Leippe M "The Case for Expert Testimony about Eyewitness Memory" 1995 Psychol Pub Pol'y & L 909-959

Lindsay et al 2008 Law & Hum Behav

Lindsay RCL et al "How Variations in Distance Affect Eyewitness Reports Identification Accuracy" 2008 Law & Hum Behav 526-535

Loftus Eyewitness Testimony

Loftus EF Eyewitness Testimony 2nd ed (Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass 1996)

Loftus et al 1987 Appl Cogn Psychol

Loftus EF et al "Time Went by So Slowly: Overestimation of Event Duration by Males and Females" 1987 Appl Cogn Psychol 3-13

Maass and Köhnken 1987 Law & Hum Behav

Maass A and Köhnken G "Eyewitness Identification: Simulating the 'Weapon Effect'" 1987 Law & Hum Behav 397-408

Meintjes-Van der Walt 2009 SACJ

Meintjes-Van der Walt L "Eyewitness Evidence and Eyewitness Science: Whether the Twain Shall Meet?" 2009 SACJ 305-326

Morgan et al 2004 Int'l J L & Psychiatry

Morgan CA et al "Accuracy of Eyewitness Memory for Persons Encountered During Exposure to Highly Intense Stress" 2004 Int'l J L & Psychiatry 265-279

Münsterberg On the Witness Stand

Münsterberg H On the Witness Stand (Doubleday New York 1908)

National Research Council Identifying the Culprit

National Research Council Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (National Academies Press Washington DC 2014)

Patterson and Baddeley 1977 J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem

Patterson KE and Baddeley AD "When Face Recognition Fails" 1977 J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 406-417

Penrod and Cutler 1995 Behav Sci & L

Penrod S and Cutler B "Expert Psychological Testimony on Eyewitness Reliability Before and After Daubert: The State of the Law and Science" 1995 Behav Sci & L 229-256

Pickel "Remembering and Identifying Menacing Perpetrators"

Pickel KL "Remembering and Identifying Menacing Perpetrators: Exposure to Violence and the Weapon Focus Effect" in Lindsay RCL et al (eds) The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Memory for People (Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ 2007) 339-360

Pozzulo and Lindsay 1998 Law & Hum Behav

Pozzulo JD and Lindsay RCL "Identification, Accuracy of Children Versus Adults: A Meta-Analysis" 1998 Law & Hum Behav 549-570

Shell 2013 Suffolk U L Rev

Shell EG "Recipe for Mistaken Convictions: Why Federal Rule of Evidence 403 Should Be Used to Exclude Unreliable Eyewitness-Identification Evidence. A Note" 2013 Suffolk U L Rev 263-287

Skeen 1987 SALJ

Skeen A St Q "Eyewitness Evidence and Psychology" 1987 SALJ 297-305

Steblay 1992 Law & Hum Behav

Steblay N "A Meta-Analytic Review of the Weapon Focus Effect" 1992 Law & Hum Behav 413-425

Tredoux "Eyewitness Identification"

Tredoux CG "Eyewitness Identification" in Spielberger CD (ed) Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Elsevier Academic Press Oxford 2004) 875-887

Wells 1978 J Pers Soc Psychol

Wells GL "Applied Eyewitness-Testimony Research: System Variables and Estimator Variables" 1978 J Pers Soc Psychol 1546-1557

Wells, Memon and Penrod 2006 Psychol Sci Public Interest

Wells GL, Memon A and Penrod SD "Eyewitness Evidence Improving Its Probative Value" 2006 Psychol Sci Public Interest 45-75

Wyss Visual Identification

Wyss K Visual Identification: Is the Current Law Sufficient to Protect against Misidentification? (LLB-dissertation University of Otago 2011)

Case law

South Africa

Holtzhausen v Roodt 1997 4 SA 766 (WLD)

R v Masemang 1950 2 SA 488 (A)

R v Mokoena 1932 OPD 79

R v Mputing 1960 1 SA 785 (T)

S v Charzen 2006 2 SACR 143 (SCA)

S v de Vries (67/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 36 (10 June 2008)

S v Engelbrecht 2005 2 SACR 41 (W)

S v Mathebula 1996 2 SACR 231 (T)

S v Mdlongwa 2010 2 SACR 419 (SCA)

S v Mthetwa 1972 3 SA 766 (A)

S v Ndika 2002 1 SACR 250 (SCA)

S v Ngobo 1986 1 SA 905 (N)

S v Ramabokela 2011 1 SACR 122 (GNP)

S v Tandwa 2008 1 SACR 613 (SCA)

Trial transcript Record of Appeal Vol 1

Trial transcript Record of Appeal S v Mdlongwa Appeal Court case AR 395/06 Regional Court Case RC 96/2004 Vol 1

Trial transcript Record of Appeal Vol 7

Trial transcript Record of Appeal S Mdlongwa Appeal Court case AR 395/06 Regional Court Case RC 96/2004 Vol 7

United States of America

Manson v Brathwaite 432 US 98 (1977)

Perry v New Hampshire 132 S Ct 716 (2012)

S v Guilbert 306 Conn 218 (2012)

S v Henderson 27 A 3d 872 (NJ 2011)

S v Lawson 352 Or 724 (2012)

S v Madison 109 NJ 223, 536 A 2d 254 (1988)

Internet sources

Criminal Practice Committee 2012 http://bit.ly/21KZq7R

Criminal Practice Committee 2012 Revised Jury Instructions http://bit.ly/21KZq7R accessed 13 January 2015

FARLEX 2014 http://bit.ly/1XfviB3

FARLEX 2014 The Free Dictionary: Special Master http://bit.ly/1XfviB3 accessed 13 March 2014

Monroe 2013 http://bit.ly/1TwThG0

Monroe K 2013 Understanding Crime Victim Perspectives on Wrongful Convictions http://bit.ly/1TwThG0 accessed 10 July 2014

Supreme Court of New Jersey 2008 http://bit.ly/1VP6ikK

Supreme Court of New Jersey 2008 State of New Jersey v Henderson: Report of the Special Master http://bit.ly/1VP6ikK accessed 13 March 2014

Supreme Judicial Court Study Group

Supreme Judicial Court Study Group on Eyewitness Evidence 2013 Report and Recommendations http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/docs/

eyewitness-evidence-report-2013.pdf accessed on 11 May 2016



How to Cite

Meintjes-van der Walt, L. (2017). Judicial Understanding of the Reliability of Eyewitness Evidence: A Tale of Two Cases. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 19, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2016/v19i0a1247




Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.